MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W61689417 · doi:10.1054/bjoc.2001.2090

Neurodevelopment of children exposed in utero to treatment of maternal malignancy

2001· review· en· W61689417 on OpenAlexaff
Irena Nulman, Dionne Laslo, S Fried, Elizabeth Uleryk, Michael Lishner, Gideon Koren

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn uteroPregnancyMedicineGestationMalignancyFetusCancerObstetricsPediatricsPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer is the second most common cause of death during the reproductive years, complicating approximately 1/1000 pregnancies. The occurrence of cancer during gestation is likely to increase as a result of a woman's tendency to delay childbearing. Improved diagnostic techniques for malignancies increases detection of cancer during pregnancy. Malignant conditions during gestation are believed to be associated with an increase in poor perinatal and fetal outcomes that are often due to maternal treatment. Physicians should weigh the benefits of treatment against the risks of fetal exposure. To date, most reports have focused on morphologic observations made very close to the time of delivery with little data collected on children's long-term neurodevelopment following in utero exposure to malignancy and treatment. Because the brain differentiates throughout pregnancy and in early postnatal life, damage may occur even after first trimester exposure. The possible delayed effects of treatment on a child's neurological, intellectual and behavioural functioning have never been systematically evaluated. The goal of this report was to summarize all related issues into one review to facilitate both practitioners' and patients' access to known data on fetal risks and safety.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207